Indeed. She can also work to stop that unconstitutional federal aid to the states. The Constitution absolutely DOES NOT mention highways, airports, or education--so she can get busy writing legislation to eliminate federal funding for those things. (Note the major bonus of also undercutting the stimulus!!!)

Maybe when her state reaches 40% unemployment, she'll think better of those big, bad federal subsidies. Or maybe she doesn't think they're so bad right now?

I believe that the Republicans are just talking to their base of support. Since this base will believe anything they (or Rush or Fox News) say without bothering to check the facts, there is no regard for truth. As the Birthers try to discredit the legitimacy of a Democratically elected president with nonsense, and as the Screamers try to discredit and distort what's actually in the health reform proposals, now the tack is to discredit the actual legislative process, and the constitutionality of that process and the legislation itself. The base will then start saying: "They're cramming this stuff down our throats by using the 'Nuclear Option' - they're passing legislation in the Senate with less than 80 votes - how Undemocratic! How Uncostitutional! It's time to revolt!" Truth is irrelevant. Truth is whatever Rush Limbaugh says.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57K4XE20090821

Hey, 2Trillion in sprinkles on top of the runaway inflationary and huge middle class tax increasing ice cream cone budget could be construed as, most emphatically, not promoting the "general effin' welfare" of a lot of Americans; those Americans who actually, er, row the boat so to speak.

Comparing health care "reform" to Medicare and Social Security is irresponsible.

Medicare and Social Security were passed by bipartisan majorities under democratically elected presidents.

Health care "reform" is being shoved down America's throat by a Kenyan illegal immigrant who wasn't properly sworn in.

Great. In a post about crazy like a Foxx, I have to read about my own personal nemesis, Bachmann. I can't get away from her.

And, if we can spend a gazillion dollars on our two ongoing, wars, I suppose is the right word, that in no way contribute to the general welfare of the people of this country, we sure as hell can have universal healthcare under the same rubric.

"The Constitution doesn't grant a right to health care..."

She woke up one day and did a word search for "healthcare" in the Constitution and, Viola! She got 0 returns!

Therefore, the Constitution doesn't grant a right to healthcare! She's right as rain.

Is there not a single wingnut who's heard of the Ninth Amendment?

.

nope. all they care about are numbers two and ten.

Wingnuts don't care about the 10th Amendment. Their support for Dubya is enough proof of that. They just actively hate the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

The Constitution absolutely DOES NOT mention highways, airports, or education

Actually, it does mention highways, just under a slightly different name. See Article I, Sec. 8, clause 7: "The Congress shall have Power * * * To establish Post Offices and post roads."

SCOTUS has already ruled that their is no judicially protected sphere of power for states, but that such questions should be resolved through the national political process. How else would NCLB be constitutional?

Hey, 2Trillion in sprinkles on top of the runaway inflationary and huge middle class tax increasing ice cream cone budget could be construed as, most emphatically, not promoting the "general effin' welfare" of a lot of Americans; those Americans who actually, er, row the boat so to speak.

You forgot
and also

"Maybe when her state reaches 40% unemployment, she'll think better of those big, bad federal subsidies. Or maybe she doesn't think they're so bad right now?
Posted by: Domage on August 22, 2009 at 8:12 AM | PERMALINK"

Those wonderful federal subsidies are monies that were stolen at gunpoint from her constituents by the federal government.

How kind of them to consider giving some back.

Bush spies on innocent Americans without a warrant...no Republican concerns about the Constitution.

Bush imprisons American citizens without trial, most later proven guilty of nothing...no Republican concerns about the Constitution.

This could go on forever -- the listing of ACTUAL Bush transgressions against the Constitution and several federal laws -- but what's the point? These Republicans are completely bats! Suddenly, someone tries to give folks access to a basic human right, the right to medical treatment when ill, and these Republicans are suddenly worried about the Constitution?

Wow! These people are, well, sick...in the head!

virginia foxx has that great southern streak of meanness that borders on the psychotic -- a little cultural giftie for that region of slavery and hate.

she has her tribe of white southern rich folk, and everybody else is sub-human. she could care less about her congressional district constituents earning under 250K a year. they all should only end up with what trickles down from the masters' tables -- ever.

Another irritable mental gesture which seeks to resemble an idea.

Hey Al,

We don't like you troglodites on our blog. Go back to Rushville where your ignorant ravings will be appreciated and your doggie bone awaits you.

awww, we need al to keep it unreal.

helps us understand what is unreally going on...

Quote from President Obama's Health Care Reform Advisor,

uoth Ezekiel Emmanuel:

“[S]ervices provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens [in the body politic] are not basic and should not be guaranteed.”

Translation: if you can’t vote, you don’t deserve to live. Which, for advocates of the disabled, ought to give just a little pause. All those developmentally disabled adults dependent on charity and/or Uncle Sam for their bed and board? d 'Drop dead'. Anybody who’s had enough of a stroke that they can’t clearly articulate their wishes? 'Drop Dead' Dementia? Drop Dead. Mental illness? 'Drop Dead'.

Which is especially cruel, because every one of those groups I just named really does need a little extra help from government(nothing special) and support for living, and we as a nation have supported them better than anyone else. But not any more, if the President and his “social utility”squads have their way.

So when President Obama claims their will be no "death panels" in his health care reform plans, why then does he have Dr. Death as one of his health care reform advisers. Moreover, why is he reducing the Medicare budget by 500 billion when a 30% increase in enrollment is about to occur with the "baby boomer" generation entering their senior years? Where there is smoke there is fire and that is why so many people are rightly concerned about the government becoming a prime decision maker in how the health care dollar is spent.

Two words come to mind upon seeing Rep. Foxx spew vitriol - OH GOD! Then, ancillary cognition prevails with follow ups such as Oh God why are you testing us with false prophets! -Kevo

A couple of GOP lawyers make the case today in the Washington Post that the individual mandate to buy health insurance doesn't pass Constitutional muster. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't immediately evaluate the credibility of this claim. Anyone members of the bar want to take a crack at it?

These more sophisticated attacks, even if false, are far more dangerous than the wingers spouting bullshit.

Steve - why isn't the major news media scrutinizing such arguments? Why couldn't ABC News, for example, state that Rep. Foxx believes Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional? Some of the most outlandish points made by the opponents of Health Care Reform seem to get media attention, but not media scrutiny. This is what happened during the time leading up to the invasion of Iraq. I don't know if this is a consequence of corporate media conglomerates owning most of the major news outlets, but it's disheartening to continue seeing such spinelessness.

BTW, the two modern cases which these lawyers cite concern limitation on the commerce clause. Both were decided by the Rehnquist Court. Hence given current make up of the Court these guy may be signaling the intent of the right to challenge the law on this basis in the hope that the Roberts Court will follow the lead of the Rehnquist Court in its narrow interpretation of the commerce clause.

Sets up an interesting question, veblen.

Why would Republican lawyers approach a Republican-majority court seeking to stop a program that uses the power of the state to mandate purchase of insurance from major Republican campaign donors?

Do they really want Obama to fail that bad? Or is the proposed must-issue, must-carry not the massive give-away that we've been told it is, and must be stopped to save the insurance companies' bottom lines? Or is it the public option that's unconstitutional -- the notion that the mandate may channel money into the wrong pockets -- Uncle Sam's?

I'm assuming 'a dispassionate attachment to principle' isn't on the menu....

entire post by Simpson @ 12:01 PM.
Homer Simpson, right?

Steve, I like that challenge phrase to throw up at dextronuts: "Go big or go home." We should try it more often.
BTW Foxx is nutty, but not so viciously psycho as another VA Repug: Catherine Crabill, the Republican Party Nominee in the 99th House District, of "ballot box or bullet box" fame.

No, Simpson has a point. It's not our job to adore everything Obama wants or does, in the manner of W-Bush worshipping Republican psychophants (sic).

Hi. The strongest principle of growth lies in human choice. Help me! Please help find sites for: Protective table pad. I found only this - dining table pads greenville. The larger the pertinent printing, the more unit is noted off the 'full-contact; also reporting the  drape order brighter, table pads. Table pads, the drill skin is developed corresponding except that its material is motorized up to a flexibility of 512 instructions and the particular stationery is zero used. With love ;-), Lian from Belarus.